The Question of Accountability in Historical Perspective

DOI10.1177/00953999922019201
Date01 September 1999
Published date01 September 1999
Subject MatterArticles
ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / September 1999Weber / ACCOUNTABILITY IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Grassroots ecosystem management (GREM), and the reinventing government movement,
more generally,suggest that the American polity is on the verge of redefining a broadly ac-
ceptable system of democraticaccountability. The problem is: What does an effective system
of accountability look like in a world of decentralized governance,shared power, collabora-
tive decision processes, results-oriented management, and broadcivic participation? This
article examines how the theory of accountability has been reconfiguredto fit the new para-
digm for governance and places accountability in historical context to gain perspective for
contemporarydiscussions ofbureaucracyin ademocracy. Itfinds thatthe conceptualization
of democratic accountability varies dramatically over time. The Jacksonian, Progres-
sives/New Deal, public-interest-egalitarian,neoconservative efficiency, and GREM models
are all distinct conceptualizations of accountability.Each emphasizes different institutions
and locates the authority for accountability in differing combinations and types of sectors
(public, private, intermediary), processes, decision rules, knowledge, and values.
THE QUESTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY
IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
From Jackson to Contemporary
Grassroots Ecosystem Management
EDWARD P. WEBER
Washington State University
The fields of environmental, natural resources,and public lands pol-
icy have been notably affected by the larger reinventing government
movement as the limits of top-down regulatory approaches to environ-
mental protection become increasingly clear (National Academy of Pub-
lic Administration, 1995; National Research Council, 1992; Rabe, 1994;
451
AUTHOR’S NOTE: I would like to thank Anne M. Khademian, LaurenceO’Toole, Lance
LeLoup, Nicholas Lovrich, and the anonymous reviewersfor Administration & Society for
their help in shaping and strengtheningthe manuscript. An earlier version of this article was
presentedat theAnnual Meetingof theAmerican PoliticalScience Association(Boston, Sep-
tember 1998). Funding for this research was providedby the Edward R. Meyer Fund.
ADMINISTRATION& SOCIETY, Vol.31 No. 4, September 1999 451-494
© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Weber,1998). Many now contend that effective environmental programs
require complex, collaborative partnerships among diverse government,
civic, and business actors at the state and local levels—a dynamic similar
to reform efforts in a multiplicity of other policy arenas, including educa-
tion, policing, rural development, public health, and tax administration.1
Beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, grassroots ecosystem- and
watershed-based management became the vanguard of this movement,
with more than 200 such efforts registered to date, primarily in the West-
ernUnitedStates.2Found inrural areasdependenton nature’sbounty such
asWillapaBay(Washington),theApplegate Valley(Oregon), theHenry’s
Fork basin (Idaho), Northern California (Quincy Library Group), and the
Malpai borderlands region (New Mexico,Arizona), grassroots ecosystem
management (GREM) involves more than 30,000 core participants and
volunteers committed to direct citizen participation in governance
arrangements; collaborative, consensus-based decision processes; and a
holistic policy mission that seeks to meld ecology with economics and the
needs of community (Dagget, 1995; General Accounting Office, 1994;
Haeuber, 1996; Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force, 1996;
Johnson, 1993; Jones, 1996; Keown, 1998; Little, 1997; Rice, MacDon-
nell, Getches, Rudnik, & Rieke, 1996; Rieke & Kenney, 1997; Snow,
1996, 1997; Yaffee et al., 1996).
With few exceptions,3the question of democratic accountability—the
keystone of American public administration, the link between bureauc-
racy and democracy—has been lost in the enthusiasm for these new col-
laborative governing efforts (Durant, 1998; Kearns, 1996, pp. 18-19;
Kettl, 1996, p. 10; Lipsky, 1980, p. 160; Thompson & Riccucci, 1998;
Wilson, 1994, p. 668). The public administration and public policy litera-
ture instead has concentrated considerable intellectual firepower on the
(non)achievement of better government performance, has examined
accountability within the narrow context of reinvented government per-
sonnel systems (Peters & Savoie, 1996; Romzek & Dubnick, 1994)4and
the legal ramifications of privatization initiatives (Gilmour & Jensen,
1998), or as in a widely cited piece by Ronald Moe (1994), has subjected
the new arrangements to a scathing critique using a conceptualization of
accountability that, by definition, finds them unaccountable. Others rec-
ognize that policy implementation networks may make accountability far
harder to secure by exacerbating problems of control but agree that “the
answer is not clear cut [concerning]...theaccountability of [such] net-
works” (Kettl, 1996; Milward, 1996, p. 89; Radin & Romzek, 1996;
Thompson&Riccucci, 1998).Whatis clearisthat “traditionaldefinitions
452 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / September 1999
of accountability are too narrow and restrictive to be useful in this
dynamic [collaborative] environment” (Kearns, 1996, p. xviii; also see
Radin & Romzek, 1996, p. 81).5
This article places the question of accountability in historical context
and derives an important lesson for contemporary discussions of bureau-
cracy in a democracy. The conceptualization of democratic accountabil-
ity, rather than being a sacrosanct concept that all can agree on, varies
dramatically over time. Dominant and distinct conceptualizations of
accountability are found in several periods of American history.6The
Jacksonian period, named after President Andrew Jackson, dominated
most of the 19th century. The Progressives/New Deal model of account-
ability reigned from the end of the 19th century through the 1960s. The
public-interest-egalitarian period constituted the next sea change in the
conceptualization of accountability,gaining prominence in the 1960s and
1970s with the passage of numerous social, safety,and environmental ini-
tiatives at the federal level and conscious attempts by policy makers and
judges to correct for the accountability problems encountered by the
Progressives/New Deal model. The neoconservative efficiency model
vied for dominance with the public-interest-egalitarian model during the
1980s and into the 1990s (see Eisner, 1993, pp. 8-9, 170-201).
Each conceptualization emphasizes different institutions and locates
the ultimate authority for accountability in differing combinations and
types of sectors (public, private, intermediary), processes, decision rules,
knowledge,andvalues.The changing character of accountability (i.e., dif-
ferent answers to the central question of “how” accountability is institu-
tionalizedand conceived) also impinges on another question significant to
thestudy of bureaucracy in a democracy,but which is of secondary impor-
tanceto this analysis, accountability “to whom?” Suffice it to saythat each
conceptualization of accountability, including contemporary GREM,
promises the same result relative to the existing system of accountabil-
ity—improved democracy by making government accountable to more
citizens. In this way,the two questions of “how” and “to whom” are inex-
tricably linked because as the how of accountability changes so too do the
outcomes and, by extension, the total number of beneficiaries and, poten-
tially, the kinds of beneficiaries.7Yet, it is the way in which GREM seeks
to expand accountability that is of primary importance here. It does so by
relying on horizontal networks of privatecitizens, state and local officials,
and other stakeholder groups instead of federal officials enforcing policy
in a top-down manner—a radical departure from conventional forms of
accountability in place since the Progressive era.
Weber / ACCOUNTABILITY IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 453

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT